I should’ve said it right in the title – it’s a review of the remake of The Producers, not Mel Brooks’ original.
I love the original Producers. It has Brooks’ stamp all over it. He went on to direct Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein - both hilarious comedies.
Roger Ebert has this story to recall about Mel:
Mel and I were in an elevator in New York at the time of the original film, and a lady got on, looked at him, and said “Sir, I have seen your film and it is vulgar!” Brooks replied: “Madame, my film rises below vulgarity.”
The vulgarity in The Producers remake doesn’t rise to the occasion, unfortunately. To put things in perspective, this is a movie that’s based on a musical which was based on a movie about a musical. Susan Stroman, the director, copies the original almost scene by scene, extending the ones that have singing to the edge of my patience (and sometimes beyond). I haven’t seen the musical itself so I assume most of the singing scenes are taken from it.
I’m a firm believer that adaptations only work if you use the original piece as a spring board. It’s naive to think that pointing a camera at a musical or a play will produce a movie.
Or, in the words of Ogilvy, when asked about research: “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” Same thing here.
Here’s a short list of the things that I missed the most in the new movie:
- Gene Wilder: I miss his hysteria, Matthew Broderick tries hard, too hard.
- The real, non-singing Ulla
- Lorenzo St. DuBois (L.S.D.) and his “baby”
In short, the remake falls short of a movie, and it’s probably not a musical either. If you’d like to see “the” movie, I suggest you rent the original. I own the collectors edition DVD and I love the interviews that come with it. If you’re an aspiring filmmaker, I think you gonna love Mel Brooks’ interview. After all, that was his breakthrough movie!